Already a subscriber? Make sure to log into your account before viewing this content. You can access your account by hitting the “login” button on the top right corner. Still unable to see the content after signing in? Make sure your card on file is up-to-date.
A federal appeals court has shot down a lower court’s ruling that sought to strip President Trump of control over thousands of California National Guard troops that are currently deployed in Los Angeles.
Some shit you should know before you read: If you’re unaware, President Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom became locked in a high-profile standoff over the president’s decision to deploy National Guard troops and Marines to Los Angeles in response to protests against immigration enforcement. Trump justified the deployment by citing 10 USC § 12406, arguing that incidents like vandalism of federal buildings and attacks on agents meant local forces couldn’t enforce the law effectively. Newsom strongly opposed the move, accusing Trump of inflaming tensions, undermining state sovereignty, and using military force to intimidate political dissent, especially in Democratic-led cities. This clash resulted in California filing lawsuits to block Trump’s actions, arguing that the president bypassed legal protocols by not coordinating the federalization of the state’s National Guard through the governor’s office.
What’s going on now: In a notable development, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of President Trump, allowing him to retain federal control over approximately 4,000 California National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles during recent protests against immigration enforcement. This decision reverses a prior ruling by US District Judge Charles Breyer, who had ordered Trump to relinquish control, arguing the president had violated multiple provisions of federal law—particularly the requirement to issue an order “through the governor” when federalizing state militia. The appeals court determined that Trump likely acted within his statutory authority under 10 US Code § 12406, which permits the federalization of state troops when local forces are deemed unable to enforce federal law.
The three-judge panel, composed of two Trump appointees and one Biden appointee, pointed to undisputed facts presented by the administration, including that federal officers had been attacked, federal buildings vandalized, and government operations impeded (conditions that they argued gave Trump a “colorable basis” to invoke the law).
Additionally, the court made clear that while presidents do not have unlimited power to take over state forces, Trump’s rationale in this case met the legal threshold for intervention. Following the decision, Trump celebrated the ruling, calling it a “BIG WIN” and claiming it proves his authority to act when local and state forces fall short.
This comes as the legal proceedings are far from over. The appeals court ruling is a temporary measure that pauses the lower court’s injunction as the broader constitutional and statutory challenge continues. California may still seek emergency relief from the US Supreme Court.
